On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Brian Pane wrote: > I think there's an easy answer. > > The thread-specific pools in this implementation are really > just pools that happen to own their own free lists. >... > > If a future async implementation has this same property--i.e., > pools can be "passed" from one thread to another, but a given > pool can only have its methods invoked from one thread at a > time--then we shouldn't have any problems.
Okay. The situation (real or imagined) I was leery of was not allocation but pool destruction... what happens when you have a subpool of a one-thread-at-a-time pool that was created in one thread and gets destroyed in another pool, if the parent pool is still active in the other thread somehow? I don't have a specific case I can name where this would happen, but it seems possible. [I'm perfectly happy to be told I'm imagining things and this just isn't a problem... if that's the case, great!] --Cliff -------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charlottesville, VA
